Disqualify political candidates with criminal records

By: Dr. Reynaldo T. Casas - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:04 AM December 07, 2015

ONCE again, a national election is forthcoming. Every six years, we stand witness to a Philippine phenomenon that
seemingly defies logic. Our country stands out as one of few remaining democratic countries that allow citizens with
proven criminal records to run for responsible government positions or politicians inside jail cells to vie for key national
or local government positions. This dissertation is an opportunity to raise the spirit of righteousness and integrity among
us Filipinos; and ultimately, for the national government to pass a law to disqualify candidates with proven criminal
records or those who have already been convicted. Amending election laws might take forever and a day, but the first
steps must be made now. Let us take the case of the crime against Filipinos with government officials plundering coffers,
such as those from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (or PDAF, a discretionary fund available to members of the
Congress). As a case in point, a successful plunder of PDAF requires a web of connivers from both within government
institutions and private entities as part of the chain of corruption. Ironically, no one has been convicted. In addition, not
one sentence, paragraph or even allusions are mentioned within the law related to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees to file SALN or Statement of Assets and
Liabilities Net Worth) directly mentioning criminal acts such as plunder or having been proven with criminal records. Not
one section includes clauses to disbar, unseat or bar anyone entry into any elective position should the candidate have
tarnished integrity, despite cries for ethical standards. Today, an array of dark characters—like convicted (or awaiting
conviction) government, military leaders or convicted murderers, kidnappers, rapists—managed to file their Certificate
of Candidacy (or COC), and their applications were accepted. To some degree, we are blessed with ombudsmen, who
have the authority to ban public officials from holding public office, even if there is no court conviction. We all stand
witness to decades of plundered wealth being used as capital funds to support the second generation. I take the position
that the second generation whose forefathers are found guilty of plunder should not be allowed to run for government
positions. It is quite obvious that winning popular votes would require significant amount of capital funds. A situation
like this easily invites these 2nd generation wannabes to dig into their forefathers’ coffers of plundered wealth. Such
being the case, I take even strongly the position to bar these children of the next generation, perhaps over the next 50
years. When Comelec is able to implement this, the lifeline of the web of corruption is cut off. Placing a ban on
politicians with criminal records from contesting elections is not against their rights. After all, a convicted criminal has
forfeited, by his/her offense, the right to lead Filipinos. In the private sector, business practices require persons with
good character and exemplary leadership skills to take on the helm of any organization, devoid of criminal records as a
condition precedent. The scenario would then be one private organization leader overseeing, say 100 to 1,000
employees, managing millions of investment funds. While in the government scenario, one leader oversees millions of
populace with billions of pesos at his discretion. The more reason we need government leaders with a higher degree of
integrity and sense of righteousness, devoid of history committing crimes. Why this is not given value in government or
political service remains a mystery. Nowhere in the world are plunderers of government coffers, accused murderers,
rapists, kidnappers and convicts given the right to contest elections and get a chance to become lawmakers, except in
the Philippines. This is a violation of the very fundamental basis of democracy. It is a violation of the principles on which
our nation was founded. If the Philippines has to emerge as a world leader, our political leaders must have proven a high
degree of integrity and sound ethical values. We need to be led by law-abiding, upright and genuine citizens of our
nation. Without sounding political, in spite of the ironical state we live in, we are blessed with a current set of national
leaders, successfully transforming our country in only almost six years, from being the “Sick Man of Asia” to becoming an
economic “Star of Asia” since Martial Law era; simply because of a leader with a high sense of righteousness and
integrity. By presenting these positions, it is my intention to push those concerned to:

1. Institutionalize measures uplifting the culture of righteousness embedded within governance of government
institutions.
2. Implant in the hearts, minds and spirits of the young the culture of righteousness and integrity by embedding these
cultures in all levels of education.

3. Build and develop government institutions governed by competent servant leaders devoid of selfish spirits driven by
corruption.

4. Build government institutions with competent leaders who can be trusted.

All these are attainable, provided righteousness and integrity are unconditionally lived by our government leaders to
serve above self.

In a speech in 1988, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, stated that “corruption was the biggest problem of them
all” (Murphy, October 9, 1988). The Philippine government is directed to maintain honesty and integrity in the public
service, and to take action against graft and corruption (Section 27, Art. II).

The EACC is charged with seeing to the implementation and enforcement of Chapter 6 of the constitution. Chapter 6
requires that leaders, holders of public office be selected on the basis of personal integrity, accountability, competence,
suitability and that leaders act in a way that, demonstrates respect for the people, brings honour to the nation and
dignity to the office, promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office.

One would think that having pending court cases whether civil, criminal or for abuse of office would so call the above
qualities into question, and that if EACC really implemented and enforced chapter 6 requirements for leadership and
integrity it would preclude those with pending court cases from running for public office.

The position is also logistically problematic, for instance what would happen if an aspirant had civil or criminal action
brought against them, and the case was still pending during the time in which they were running for public office. How
would it work if said the person were to win the seat and then the pending case decided against them even in the court
of last instance. Would they be allowed to stay in office with a conviction or would they be impeached and an expensive
by election called?

Not to mention the numerous conflict of interests that would arise from having aspirants with pending cases running in
an election, were they to win the seat for which they were running would they attempt to use the influence of their new
office to influence the outcome of their pending case. If an aspirant involved had a civil action determined against them
for millions of shillings would they attempt to use public coffers to cover the judgment?

Thoughts should aspirants with pending cases be barred from running in the next election?